ORDER : 1. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. 2. By consent of both parties, the writ petitioner is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the resolution of the first respondent No.1454 dated 29.12.2015 and consequential order of the second respondent dated 05.01.2016. Through the impugned resolution, the petitioner, who is the Ward Councilor of Kumbakonam Municipality, is suspended for forthcoming two Municipal Council meetings and the said resolution was communicated through the consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent. 4. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings are issued in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not put on notice. He also submitted that the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction, since the Municipality is not having power to suspend the petitioner from attending forthcoming meetings. 5. Per contra, Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate who takes notice for the respondents contended that as against the resolution passed by the Municipality, the present writ petition is not maintainable and only a statutory appeal before the Government under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, has to be filed. In support of his submission, the learned Government Advocate relied on an unreported decision made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10629 of 2014, dated 02.07.2014. He also submitted that even in respect of future meetings, the Municipal Council has got power to suspend and in support of such contention, he relied on the decision made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.960 of 2014 dated 04.08.2014. 6. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that there is a violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, I do not find any provision in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 insisting upon or emphasizing the Authorities to issue notice before suspending a member based on his misconduct. Insofar as the jurisdiction issue is concerned, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct in view of Section 28(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which empowers the Chairman to preserve order during council meeting. Insofar as the jurisdiction issue is concerned, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct in view of Section 28(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which empowers the Chairman to preserve order during council meeting. Even otherwise as against the proceedings imposing a punishment, this Court, at this stage, cannot interfere as the petitioner can raise all these grounds before the Government by filing a regular appeal. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10629 of 2014, dated 02.07.2014 has observed at Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 as follows: “3. As against the Resolution of the Municipality, the petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal to the Government under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. Therefore, the petitioner should avail of the said opportunity and he cannot directly rush to this Court. 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.” 7. Therefore, without going into the merits and contentions raised by the petitioner as against the resolution passed by suspension, this Writ Petition is dismissed, only on the ground that the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the Government under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. The petitioner is at liberty to file such appeal immediately and if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Government shall consider the appeal and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the said appeal, as it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the period of tenure is going to end by next three months. Since the Government is not made as a party, this Court suo motu impleaded the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai as party respondent in this writ petition. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Government. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.